Backwoodsman's Caliber?

[Rifleman1776]

Who, When, Where, Occupation, Native, European, etc.

You forgot.... 'what Grandpa left in the barn'. :wink: Yep, methinks the rifle carried was often more a matter of circumstance than choice.

 

[BrownBear]

...the rifle carried was often more a matter of circumstance than choice.

Hard to document, but I suspect there's a whole lot of truth to that. Hard-scrabble times make for hard-scrabble solutions.

My only personal frame of reference is from my parents and grandparents, both seeing the Depression from different sides. You made do with what you had and did without when you didn't have it, saving everything you could against the day when hard times surely returned. I suspect (and as always can't document) that frontier folks had much the same outlook for everything from scrap leather to guns.

My granddad had a 12 SxS that he managed to hang onto through the Depression. Only gun he ever owned until the day he died, and now proudly in my hands. Still hunt with it to honor him and all he accomplished through the hard-scrabble.

My dad never owned a shotgun or a lowly rimfire, instead only owning a bolt rifle. If he needed a shotgun he borrowed granddads, but I don't recall granddad every borrowing the bolt gun. My dad also had his Colt Peacemaker from his service as a deputy sheriff on the border in the 50's, another I proudly harbor for future generations. Never saw him shoot it, and I've never shot it myself. It's a "work" gun, and not a plaything, at least as far as the family tradition continues today.

Sorry for the ramble, but comparing hard-scrabble two centuries back with hard-scrabble almost a century back is instructive to me. Folks worked hard for what they had, and worked hard with what they could manage.

 

[Rifleman1776]

comparing hard-scrabble two centuries back with hard-scrabble almost a century back is instructive to me. Folks worked hard for what they had, and worked hard with what they could manage.

Amen, Bro. Unfortunately, most of the frontiersmen who took their families into unknown wildnerness and carved out a life for themselves were illiterate. We can only imagine the lives they lived and the adventures, good and horrific, they experienced. These adventuresome and freedome loving people are where our Rev. Riflemen came from. Wish we had more written record of their lives and times. And what rifles they carried.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

They were? Simply because it wasn't customary for everybody to keep a journal, the scant journals that we have do not necessarily mean few weren't literate.

"While perhaps 90 percent of the white male population were literate around 1750, only 40 percent of the women were. "
Chapter 6, A People's History of The United States by Howard Zinn.

LD

 

[Rifleman1776]

They were? Simply because it wasn't customary for everybody to keep a journal, the scant journals that we have do not necessarily mean few weren't literate.

"While perhaps 90 percent of the white male population were literate around 1750, only 40 percent of the women were. "
Chapter 6, A People's History of The United States by Howard Zinn.

LD

LD, I know you are our journal/documentation guy. But history books are not always accurate either. Today we don't have near 90% literate. Among 'white' demographics it is about 75%, lower socio-demographics of minorities, it is much lower. I'll ad, IMHO, that is very sad.

 

[Dphar]

Lot of responses. We have narrowed it down to somewhere between .32" cal. and .72" caliber. :surrender:

So if a fellow picks a .45, .50, .54 or a .58 he should be covered...... :haha:

54 or 58 would rate atypical from my research. They were used but not common. If you WANT one then go for it. But be careful with the stock design. I would go with 45-50. Adequate for eastern game and saves a lot of lead over a 58 which runs about 24 to the pound vs 48-40 for a 50. For people who saw very little money in the course of the year would appreciate this.

Dan

 

[huntinguy]

They were? Simply because it wasn't customary for everybody to keep a journal, the scant journals that we have do not necessarily mean few weren't literate.

"While perhaps 90 percent of the white male population were literate around 1750, only 40 percent of the women were. "
Chapter 6, A People's History of The United States by Howard Zinn.

LD

Having read and researched H Zinn for a college project... I would take is word with a grain of salt... the size of a one pound salt lick. To my mind he was very bias in his reporting.

literacy was more an issue of class, location and free time to study. Many were literate but that was to be interpreted as ability to write ones name... in some instances and all the way up to reading Plato in others. Keep in mind, G Washington was not considered very literate by some because he neither spoke nor read any foreign language.

 

[84bronze]

What would a backwoodsman's caliber have been in Pennsylvania and in Virginia in 1777 or 1781?

If you had to buy one then the cost and scarcity of good steel along with how they were made could limit what you could afford. Sort of like buying your old work truck...you want the huge big block with the 4 barrel but really can only afford the small block 2 barrel or big 6. I would think a rifle being one of your most important possessions that you might splurge a little if you could afford it. I would think that you could acquire one of the military "surplus" of which were larger bore. I would guess that smaller 45 to 54 cal would be the majority with some of the older heirlooms being of larger bore.

 

[smoothshooter]

I'm with huntingguy on using caution when reading anything written by Zinn. There is often an anti - American / white / religeon male chauvinist political correctness angle there, and the disparity in his numbers on the literacy rate between white males and females may be a dig at white males to show them as wanting to keep the women ignorant and subservient ( and pregnant ).

 

[84bronze]

There is often an anti - American / white / religeon male chauvinist political correctness angle there, and the disparity in his numbers on the literacy rate between white males and females may be a dig at white males to show them as wanting to keep the women ignorant and subservient ( and pregnant ).

Keeps them wenches busy while your trying to build your legacy in those long weeks away!


Common Law was much more prevalent and the level of teachings for home schooling (no govt intervention yet in schools) was higher than schools today.

Actually I already have my legacy and the wife or myself (whichever was faster) would :slap: if suggesting other than waiting for Grandkids.

 

[Tommy Bruce]

Here is another breakdown of the calibers and dates of the guns shown in Rifles of Colonia American. It was actually an old post on here from 2005 and the poster is listed as anonymous.



We have had several discussions here and on other boards about the typical or average rifle caliber for given time frames of our history (e.g., see posts below on mid 1700s). We have also had discussions on the 'reduction' of average bore size through time, which is generally true east of the Miss R. I have seen statements that the typical Rev War rifle shot a .40-something ball, etc....Well, I decided to do a little research. In the past I have collected stats on hundreds of flintlock rifles and found the average caliber to be near .48 +/-, but these were collected without regard to age...There is a large spread of calibers, .28 to .75, generally. We do have a source of data to study: the Shumway Rifles of Colonial America, volumes 1 and 2. Here are well over 100 of the earliest colonial American rifles plus some European analogs. Shumway illustrates these guns and gives the vital stats, such as caliber for all but a few. He also 'dates' them approximately, generally into classes such as 'third quarter of the 18th century' (i.e., 1750-1775), occasionally getting more precise and rarely a gun has a firm date, such as the 1761 Schreit rifle. 108 of these rifles have both caliber and 'dating' associated with them: 47 fall into the 1750-1775 group and 61 into the 1775-1790s group. Here are my results:
1750-1775: aver caliber = 0.566, 60% in the .50-
.59 class, 28% in the .60-.69 class,
10% in the .40-.49 class, one .72
1775-1799: aver caliber = 0.516, 51% in the .50-
.59 class, 38% in the .40-.49 class,
10% in the .60-.69 class, one .72
Soooo, we see some trends. First, the majority of all F&I War through early Federal period guns shown have bores larger than .50 and .50-something would be a typical caliber. Second, there is a slight reduction in bore size from the 3rd to 4th quarter of the 18th century. I am sure that if I broke down my other stats into early 1800s rifles I would see a further reduction in those east of the Miss R. The .50s still dominate in the latter part of the 18th century, but the .40s are gaining. These are factual data. You may quibble with the sample (best there is available) or with Shumway's dates for a few guns (not enough to change the results much). You may argue that they all were enlarged over the years (I sincerely doubt that most were, and simple freshening does not materially alter the bore size and would only minutely change the stats). So, there you have it. P.S., Shumway threw in a few European rifles, and the 10 Germanic ("Jaeger") rifles shown typically range 0.56-0.70, except for one oddball 0.44.